+- Punaweb Forum (http://punaweb.org/forum)
+-- Forum: Punaweb Forums (http://punaweb.org/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: Punatalk (http://punaweb.org/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=10)
+--- Thread: Welfare (/showthread.php?tid=6634)
RE: Welfare - Radiopeg - 02-19-2010
Over forty years ago when I was on welfare ( I had one child, no husband, and 3/4 of a college education). At that time in California when you went to work you got to subtract childcare and transportation. But you got to keep the first $30 dollars after that and then 1/3 of what you made, then the remainder came out of your benefits, so that you could actually come out with more. Also, I was on some plan where my Junior College classes were free, and I got text books "loaned" to me. I think is was a winning program. I went to school, worked part time at school, and I acquired education and good job habits. I don't know why they changed it. On the other hand, women I knew just had another baby rather than face work. I am flummoxed by that mentality. Yes I think education is the key to any long term solution.
We shall not cease from exploration, and the end of all our
exploring will be to arrive where we started and know the
place for the first time.
-T.S. Eliot
RE: Welfare - missydog1 - 02-20-2010
Right on, Radiopeg. That was a reasonable incentive program. I think it changed in the early 80's to disallow single parents from going to school. And to make it so that if you worked part time you were no better off than by not working. Then they make a law that says if your children are over five you are suddenly off welfare, even though you have no training or job experience, so that encourages women to have another baby so there's an under five in the household.
Also they based benefits on a fixed amount per person in the family. Babies cost less than older children, in food, clothing, and housing, so the system encourages the production of babies to balance the budget. A baby gets the same allowance as a teenager, both with food stamps and benefits. When people are living on that little, it does make a difference.
Maybe they should have reformed the system by not increasing benefits for additonal children born to women already collecting welfare at the time they conceived. That would have stopped the systemic abuse that so many people complain about. However, it would have been hard on women who were knocked up against their will.
I feel overall that the legislators took a lot of wrong directions with welfare reform. The original social concept assumed the best about people and believed the unfortunate ones needed a hand. Then it just flipped to assuming the worst of people and spending tons of money on administration and investigation to ferret out abuse, while it dropped the support so far below the cost of living that a single parent with one or two children couldn't get by on the terms of the system. Most people who are in basic survival mode will do what they need to do to keep going.